Talk:Constitution of the Allied States
Is there anyone who can setup a conservative and totalitarian constitution for me? I am going to need it for after the coup. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 13:25, August 26, 2010 (UTC) possibly. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:16, August 26, 2010 (UTC) I would appreciate it. I don't really know how to give more detail... people still have somewhat of a right to privacy, economy will be centrally planned... and eh... a council will be the governing body. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 15:21, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Nationalized industry or no? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:37, August 26, 2010 (UTC) To an extent, I don't want the new government to be totally communist just yet. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 15:48, August 26, 2010 (UTC) How can the government be conservative and communist at the same time? I need a clarification on "conservative." —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:55, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Well... believe in tradition... religion plays a large role... ya'know? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 16:49, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Okay, so no Orwellian stuff, just plain old evilness and totalitarianism. Can do. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:51, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Yeah, the economy will still be good, people's lifestyles won't really change, but the government will be power hungry and not tolerate some things. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 17:13, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :Just picture Nazi Germany without the senseless killings and stuff. Propaganda will be severe etc. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 17:14, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :Okay, then like Yarphei a bit lol. Should it be like Eastern-style individualist-style (Yarphei, SCOSK, EAF, China) or mostly assimilated? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 17:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :CHRISTIAN STATES OF AMERICA DOITDOITDOITDOITDOITDOIT. Woogers - talk ( ) 19:06, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::The country's name is going to be the Confederate States of America/something. It should still be American-style. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 19:45, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :::Not name wise, but policy-wise. ONE NATION IN GOD. Woogers - talk ( ) 20:18, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::Can work, however some things are going to be done ICly which aren't that holy... like invading (with permission) small defenseless countries for the CSA's greedy wants. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 20:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::Pretty natural in religious dictatorships. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:26, August 27, 2010 (UTC) Some notes Overall it is good; I've listed stuff I don't like, and if I didn't mention something it probably means it's good. *Change 1.1a to "The power of the President is supreme in carrying out the laws of the Allied States." The current version could be interpreted as to make the president a king. *1.2a: Strike "not the obligation." If the Constitution doesn't oblige the citizens, they don't have to. *1.3b, and other places: don't use "they" for a gender-neutral, just "he." Put this somewhere: "The personal pronoun 'he' does not refer to the male sex." *1.4a: Don't put the salary in the constitution; inflation could eventually put the job into the low-income bracket. Just say "the salary of the President is established by law," or better yet, add "to set the salaries of public officials" to the powers of Congress. *1.5b: What is this overwritten thing? *1.6c: "kicked out" is informal. Use "he will be expelled" instead. *1.6d: What's this Disabling Act? *1.7a: Just put declaring war as a power of Congress and get rid of this. *1.8b: This doesn't make sense at all. *1.10a/b: Get rid of these, and put "The Congress may fire any federal official." Don't bother to mention impeachment. *1.11: Re-organize this. *2.2a: Get rid of this. If there are no age caps in the Constitution, it would not be within anyone's power to place an age cap. *2.3: Re-organize into one section; "A Representative or Senator may live no more than twenty kilometers from any point within the jurisdiction of the state they are representing." *2.4: The subsections are unnecessary. It says later that citizenship is defined by law; let law define it. *2.5: If this were to happen, a congressman could resign when they don't like a bill, get re-elected, resign, get re-elected, and so on, preventing the bill from passing. *2.7a: "he," not "they" *2.9b: This is the same as 2.5; this could block any bill. *2.12: Clean this up. *2.13a: Congress has limitations decided by the Courts? The Courts could just limit them from doing things they don't like. *3.4: "All" means there are no exceptions. The extra sentence is unneeded. *3.4a: Determine exactly what the exceptions are, or say they can be established "by law." *3.8a: Get rid of "has the right." Just say that the president "appoints these justices." *3.9: What exceptions? State that they can be established "by law." *3.10: Same as 1.4a *The Amendments; why aren't they in the original document? When the constitution is first adopted this way, women aren't even allowed to vote! Hope this helps. Again, if I didn't mention something it is probably good. --Personak 00:27, February 28, 2011 (UTC) Thanks for this! It will give me something to work from when my next update comes. With the recent reorganization of Congress > Senate, I have to change quite a lot of things. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 22:19, February 28, 2011 (UTC) Don't use he as a neutral pronoun, in today's world it's sexist (edit: as in, it DOES refer to the male sex, always), lol. I recommend you keep using they. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:24, February 28, 2011 (UTC) It isn't sexist, it's just practical; they denotes plural, and he/she is unruly. Laws still use he to refer to all people - just see the fourth paragraph of the US Code - and if you watch the news, it isn't really a controversy. I went to a women's rights website, and it didn't mention it as a complaint at all. But if you really don't want to offend people, even though it won't affect anything, use he/she rather than they. –Personak 01:35, March 1, 2011 (UTC) In the English language the word "he" can be used to be gender-neutral. You can: a) change the English language b) write the constitution in Hungarian c) purge all non-males d) use "one" (slightly awkward) e) use "he/she" (a bit unruly, as Personak says) d) follow typical english grammar rules and use "he" Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:00, March 1, 2011 (UTC) I use "they" but I should change it to "he or she". Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 05:03, March 1, 2011 (UTC) Hmmm, I could use "people" and "persons." Also "the person." -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 12:35, March 1, 2011 (UTC)